[GA - PASSED] Rights of the Employed

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcmasterdonia

mcmasterdonia

Just like a queef in the wind, so is life
-
-
-
TNP Nation
McMasterdonia
ga.jpg


Rights of the Employed
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Greater Soviet North America | Onsite Topic​
Co-authored by Tinhampton

The World Assembly,

Taking note of the numerous national and international laws that recognize a range of rights for workers;

Noting with regret that, despite all the rights that cover the previously cited laws, the workforce is still struggling to assert those rights;

Deeply concerned that this governing body does not have a resolution explicitly stating the rights of workers in their place of employment;

  1. Defines a "worker" as an individual who currently has a contract with an employer which entails carrying out particular tasks for that employer with the expectation of a regular monetary reward, including those individuals who are currently shadowing workers or are working as interns for that employer;
  2. Declares accordingly that this resolution, although not an exhaustive list of the rights possessed by all workers, is intended to ensure that they are aware of the rights they hold by law, as well as any protections from the unjust treatment they may be subjected to;
  3. Further declares accordingly that this resolution shall be applicable to all workers, except for Article E(3), which applies only to workers of lactating species such as humans and cows;
  4. Clarifies that workers in Member States shall enjoy protection from:
    1. dismissal, suspension from work, discrimination, and salary reduction as a result of childbirth or claiming maternity, paternity, and adoption leave ("parental leave");
    2. discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, gender expression or sexual identity, including pay discrimination and unfair dismissal;
    3. being subject to hostile, offensive or intimidating behavior (including sexual harassment, domestic violence, and other unwanted approaches) as a condition of becoming or remaining employed, or otherwise in the course of their employment; and
    4. being retaliated against by their employer for participating in a trial or tribunal regarding discriminatory employment practices;
  5. Further clarifies that each worker in Member States:
    1. shall have the right to claim at least eight weeks of parental leave, during which they must receive their full expected wage from their employer, upon childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;
    2. shall have the right to claim at least four weeks of this parental leave after childbirth or adoption of a child below the age of majority;
    3. who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace shall be entitled to:
      1. a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding; and
      2. a period of the working day set aside for breastfeeding; which shall be equal to one-eighth of their working day, may also be divided into two or three equal periods and must be guaranteed for up to one year after the end of their parental leave;
  6. Encourages employers to promulgate policies on sexual harassment in the workplace, including by establishing fair and effective internal tribunals to deal with complaints thereof.
Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
Against.
a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding
Click to expand...
As pointed out by Christian Democrats on the NS forums, it's ridiculous to suggest that a small business has to have a room for the sole purpose of breastfeeding when it can also reserve a multifunctional room for a period of time.
 
Last edited:
Against.
  • Leaves out freelancers and most contractors
    • "regular monetary reward"
  • Employee needs to prove to their employer that it is necessary for them to breastfeed at work. :blink:
    • "who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace"
  • Clumsy wording
    • Entire professions are built around "being subject to hostile, offensive or intimidating behavior"
    • Small businesses are vastly different from large corporations, and oftentimes cannot possibly guarantee "a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding".
 
Last edited:
Against. I don't like how this proposal is forcing certain aspects into every member state.
1. At least 8 months of parental leave for every worker? That is an outright nope for me (you can expect that for women but I don't like giving the same for men when it often is unnecessary. Besides, companies should be given flexibility in helping parents set up family, for instance, allowing parents to work from home for certain duration).
2. Asking for protection from gender discrimination? I am sorry, it works theoretically but for realism sake, you have to understand that some jobs need more men than women and vice versa.
3. Protection from pay discrimination? What if a company/organisation practices positive discrimination, eg. Encourage women to become engineers and IT experts by giving them more benefits? That would be disallowed under this law.

TLDR, Trying to achieve utopia seems to unreasonable for me.
 
Last edited:
Against.
The resolution has a lot of lines forcing member states as well as others to do things which should not be expected of them. The resolution lacks realism. In addition, the resolution has a number of critical flaws which have already been mentioned by others. (like Cretox States in this thread)
 
I am the co-author of this proposal (which is properly capitalised "Rights of the employed" with a lower-case "e"). I note that many people have simply replied "For" or (for the most part) "Against" without explaining why; however, I offer the following in response to some concerns raised:
Cretox State:
Against.
  • Leaves out freelancers and most contractors
    • "regular monetary reward"
  • Employee needs to prove to their employer that it is necessary for them to breastfeed at work. :blink:
    • "who can prove to their employer that they cannot avoid breastfeeding their children in the workplace"
  • Clumsy wording
    • Entire professions are built around "being subject to hostile, offensive or intimidating behavior"
    • Small businesses are vastly different from large corporations, and oftentimes cannot possibly guarantee "a private, safe, hygienic and ventilated area in that workplace, separate from any toilets that may exist on-site, which shall be reserved for the sole purpose of breastfeeding".
Click to expand...
  • As I have pointed out on the forumside discussion thread, the definition of a "worker" in this proposal is similar to the definition of a worker in English and Welsh law, who must "currently ha[ve] a contract with an employer." Self-employed and gig workers, who are effectively their own employer, are not in the scope of this legislation or in much real-world employment law.
  • I can trust individual corporations in member states and their own management(s) with making a reasonable decision, in each case, as to whether a particular employee sincerely needs help with breastfeeding.
  • Could you please give examples of such professions?
  • This was much the same concern raised by CD, see above, although I am broadly sympathetic to Araraukar's response on when the breastfeeding requirement must be fulfilled.

Fregerson:
Against. I don't like how this proposal is forcing certain aspects into every member state.
1. At least 8 months of parental leave for every worker? That is an outright nope for me (you can expect that for women but I don't like giving the same for men when it often is unnecessary. Besides, companies should be given flexibility in helping parents set up family, for instance, allowing parents to work from home for certain duration).
2. Asking for protection from gender discrimination? I am sorry, it works theoretically but for realism sake, you have to understand that some jobs need more men than women and vice versa.
3. Protection from pay discrimination? What if a company/organisation practices positive discrimination, eg. Encourage women to become engineers and IT experts by giving them more benefits? That would be disallowed under this law.
Click to expand...
  1. This proposal requires that member states guarantee eight weeks, not eight months, of parental leave. Member states are free to extend this period and this does not prohibit companies from supporting new families of their own accord.
  2. In what sense, exactly, are you arguing that "some jobs need more men than woman and vice versa" and why?
  3. Affirmative action was outlawed by GA#457 "defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities" - by the author's own admission.
 
Tinhampton:
  • As I have pointed out on the forumside discussion thread, the definition of a "worker" in this proposal is similar to the definition of a worker in English and Welsh law, who must "currently ha[ve] a contract with an employer." Self-employed and gig workers, who are effectively their own employer, are not in the scope of this legislation or in much real-world employment law.
Click to expand...
  • Why aren't they within the scope of this legislation? The WA is not the real world, and it makes no sense to exclude certain types of workers based on the real world when it would benefit the legislation to include them. Are gig and most contracted workers undeserving of "protections from the unjust treatment they may be subjected to"? Should they be forced to tolerate "discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, gender expression or sexual identity, including pay discrimination and unfair dismissal"? For many people, this kind of work represents their primary source of income. Should companies similar to those such as Uber within member-nations (whose employees are not covered by this proposal) be able to discriminate against workers in accepting, barring, and allocating work?
Tinhampton:
  • I can trust individual corporations in member states and their own management(s) with making a reasonable decision, in each case, as to whether a particular employee sincerely needs help with breastfeeding.
Click to expand...
  • If "individual corporations" could be trusted "with making a reasonable decision" on these matters, there would be no need for this type of legislation to begin with.
Tinhampton:
  • Could you please give examples of such professions?
Click to expand...
  • Last I checked, prostitution is explicitly protected by prior resolutions, and encompasses certain sub-fields which I will not elaborate on.
 
I wrote my view on this at here and also cross-posted below.

On the current GA proposal: "Rights Of The Employed".

I can tell you as an economic analyst that workers need protections, mostly because they have less bargaining power than corporations, especially when corporations create monopsony labour markets. The specific protections in the proposal, however, impose substantial costs on firms that give disincentives for them to hire. I am aware of the optics of opposing this proposal. This is meant to explain why I have decided to oppose it.

First, the provision of stronger protections for contractually bound workers makes corporations more likely to give work to sub-contractors like those who set their own hours, meaning that more people work informally and under worse conditions and less stable employment. Firms like Uber, Grubhub, etc would simply be unaffected, even when they are the ones which are exploiting workers most.

Second, the provision related to non-retaliation against workers expressing grievances ignores the easy way out for employers: forced arbitration. Failure to recognise this makes it difficult to get legislation on this topic passed as well, due to duplication rules in the Assembly. Even in nations where forced arbitration is prohibited, most grievances are resolved by settlement and not by trial, substantially weakening these regulations.

Third, the age of majority requirement in the proposal in my view ignores the fact that people who are 17 do not require special attention from caretakers. The requirement should have read something along the lines of giving leave for parents to take care of children who in fact need their care. This is a substantial overreach which corporatist governments probably would respond to be making adoption of older children more difficult, increasing the burden on the foster care system.

Fourth, the requirement for a room for the sole purpose of breastfeeding is an unnecessary and costly burden on small business, especially when there are few breastfeeding employees. This harms small business and, because of the proposal failing to impose similar regulations on hiring, incentivises business not to hire people who are or may be breastfeeding, placing greater burdens on female employment.
 
Tinhampton:
  1. This proposal requires that member states guarantee eight weeks, not eight months, of parental leave. Member states are free to extend this period and this does not prohibit companies from supporting new families of their own accord.
  2. In what sense, exactly, are you arguing that "some jobs need more men than woman and vice versa" and why?
  3. Affirmative action was outlawed by GA#457 "defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities" - by the author's own admission.
Click to expand...
Fine, I stand corrected on Point 3 because I forgot about that resolution. However, if we re-read that proposal and look at yours, it seems that you aren't really doing much more than that proposal, extending it to wages and parental leave. But IA's points probably echoed my sentiments, especially the one on the issue of hiring of people.
As for point 2, there are probably few examples I can think off - manual labour would need more man since they generally require more strength (and therefore, companies would hire man more than women), while things like being housemaid or midwife would only require man.

Also, I just thought off one more possible problem - companies can find other excuses to get rid of breastfeeding/pregnant mothers even with this proposal in place. Say the company has a variable bonus scheme. Companies can claim that these workers have much lower productivity, and give them a bad grade for their work performance, and by extension, reduce their bonus. Is that discrimination? Yes. Does the proposal solve the issue? Not at all. Especially for companies with low basic wage but high bonuses, this can still be an serious issue.
 
Edit - For. After seeing Tinhampton's responses to the main issues that people have with this, I think that the Proposal is reasonable if not perfect in every way.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top